MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399922392 · doi:10.1094/pdis-11-23-2452-pdn

First Detection of Grapevine Enamovirus 1 Infecting Grapevine (<i>Vitis vinifera</i>) in Canada

2024· article· en· W4399922392 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Shawkat Ali, Amadou Sidibé, Dong Xu, Pierre Lemoyne, Mamadou L. Fall

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyVitis viniferaCultivarHorticulturePlant virusReference genomeWine grapeBotanyGenomeVirusVirologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grapevine enamovirus 1 (GEV1) belongs to the genus Enamovirus, in the family Solemoviridae. It has been reported from several countries infecting grapevines including Brazil (Silva et al. 2017), China (Ren et al. 2021) and France (Hily et al. 2022). To assess the prevalence and diversity of economically important grapevine viruses in nine Canadian vineyards, total RNA and double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) (Fall et al. 2020) were extracted from 30 and 100 composite samples respectively, with each consisting of five vines of the same cultivars. The cultivars included in this study are Frontenac noir (n=34), Vidal (n=32), Marquette (n=33), Riesling (n=31), and Pinot noir (n=31). The total RNA and dsRNA samples were subsequently multiplexed and diagnosed by high-throughput sequencing (HTS) on NovaSeq (600 S4 PE100) and MiSeq (2 × 250 cycle PE) respectively. From NovaSeq and MiSeq sequencing, an average of 410,000 to 1.3 million reads/sample were obtained, respectively, with mapped viral reads representing 10.92% to 12.48% of the total reads. After sequence quality was verified using Trimmomatic v.0.40 (Bolger et al. 2014), the clean sequences were screened against all possible viruses in the databases using the Virtool (Rott et al. 2017) and VirFind virus detection pipelines (Ho and Tzanetakis 2014). GEV1 was detected in clean sequences from two, three, and two leaf samples of cultivars 'Marquette' 'Riesling' and 'Frontenac noir' respectively. Six of the seven HTS-assembled GEV1 genomes were partial, ranging from 4,523 to 6,000 nucleotide (nt) with genome coverage varying from 71% to 89%. Only one 6,314 nt long assembled contig (Accession No. OR021829), represented a nearly complete genome, being only 53 and 3 nt shorter than Sd-CG (MT536978) at 5' and 3' untranslated regions (UTR), respectively. Isolate 3- Riesling-CAN (OR021829) shares 90.56 to 94.19% nt identities with several GEV1isolates at 96-99% of query coverage. Phylogenetically, OR021829 is closer to GEV1 isolates from France and China (Figure S1). To validate the HTS results, the developed primer pair SetF and Set1R (Silva et al., 2017) was used for RT-PCR detection. The amplicons from all seven HTS-positive samples were sequenced using Sanger sequencing, confirming the presence of GEV-1 in three studied grape cultivars in Canadian vineyards. Symptoms associated with the specific GEV1-infected vines could not be explained as composite samples were used. Each of the combined samples HTS library also tested positive for at least one of the known grape virus/viroids, namely grapevine leafroll associated-virus -3, grapevine pinot gris virus, grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus, Marafivirus syrahense grapevine Syrah virus-1 and hop stunt viroid. To our knowledge, this is the first report of GEV1 being detected in grapevines in Canada, or in any North American vineyard. GEV1 is a relatively new virus, and its biology remains largely unknown. Based on this sequence new GEV1 primers can be developed to know the genetic variability among GEV-1 and improve the detection of this virus in vineyards.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant DiseaseSame topicPlant Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207